Using electronic surveys: Advice from survey professionals

Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2003, Pages

  Shannon, David M ^a   Johnson, Todd E ^a   Searcy, Shelby ^b   Lott, Alan ^a  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Huntington College   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893442936     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15317714     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2. Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rates in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421-434.
3. Bowers, D. K. (1999). FAQs on online research. Marketing Research, 10(1), 45-48.
4. Bradley, N. (1999). Sampling for Internet surveys: An examination of respondent selection for Internet research. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41(4), 387-395.
5. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thomson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-826.
6. Couper, M. P. Blair, J. & Triplett, T. (1997). A comparison of mail versus email for surveys of employees in federal statistical agencies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Norfolk, VA.
7. Couper, M. P. & Nichols, W. L. (1998). The history and development of computer assisted survey information collection methods. In M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C.Z.E. Clark, J. Martin, W.L. Nichols, & J. M. O'Reilly (Eds.). Computer assisted survey information collection (pp. 1-22). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8. Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P. & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perception of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146-162.
9. Department of Commerce (2000, October). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington, DC: Author.
10. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
11. Dillman, D. A. (1978). ). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
12. Dillman, D. A. & Bowker, D. K. (2000). The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. [Online]. Available: http://sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers.htm.
13. Dillman, D. A., Tortora, R. D., Bowker, D. (1998). Principles for constructing web surveys: An initial statement. (Technical Report No. 98-50). Pullman, WA: Washington State University Social and Economic Sciences Research Center.
14. Eaton, B. (1997). Internet surveys: Does WWW stand for "why waste the work?" Marketing Research Review, June/July, Article 0244. Available:http://www.Quirks.com
15. Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed.) Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
16. GVU's 10th WWW User Survey (October, 1998). General Demographic Summary [On-line]. Available http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/reports/
17. Herberlein, T. A. & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.
18. Jeavons, A. Ethology and the Web: Observing respondent behavior in Web surveys. Proceedings of the Worldwide Internet Conference, Amsterdam: ESOMAR, 1998. Available: http://w3.one.net/~andrewje/ethology.html.
19. Kaye, B. K. & Johnson, T. J. (1999). Research methodology: Taming the cyber frontier. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 323-337.
20. Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Responses effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
21. Lavrakas, P. J. (1993). Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision (2nd ed.) Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
22. Linsky, A. S. (1975). Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires: A review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 82-101.
23. Mehta, R. & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and responses content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 429-439.
24. Ramos, M., Sedivi, B. M., & Sweet, E. M. (1998). Computerixed self-adnministered questionnaires.. In M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C.Z.E. Clark, J. Martin, W.L. Nichols, & J. M. O'Reilly (Eds.). Computer assisted survey information collection (pp. 389-408). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
25. Schaeffer, D. R. & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of standard e-mail methodology: Results on an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly,62(3), 378-397.
26. Shannon, D. M. & Bradshaw, C. C. (2002). A comparison of response rate, speed and costs of mail and electronic surveys. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), in press.
27. Sheehan, K. B. & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Using e-mail to survey Internet users in the United States: Methodology and Assessment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(3). Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html.
28. Solomon, David J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7 (19). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=19.
29. Sproull, L. S. (1986). Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 156-169.
30. Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking Questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
31. Tse, A. C. B., Tse, K. C., Yin, C. H., Ting, C. B., Yi, K. W., Yee, K. P., & Hong, W. C. (1995). Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: E-mail versus snail mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 441-446.
32. Watt, J. H. (1997). Using the Internet for quantitative survey research. Marketing Research Review, June, Article 0248. Available: http://www.Quirks.com
33. Weissbach, S. (1997) Internet Research: Still a few hurdles to clear. Marketing Research Review, June/July. Article 0249. Available: http://www.Quirks.com
34. Yu, J. & Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research deign effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 36-44.